AGDQ 2013 Games Topic

2012-07-12 11:24:53 am

sonic adventure dx getting cut makes me sad. i just spent forever making a perfect chaos pic for a prize! maybe it can count for sonic generations? if not i guess it's back to the old drawing board (does that count as a pun?)

Paraxade

2012-07-12 11:27:13 am

perfect chaos is in sonic generations so that works Tongue

kfcman

2012-07-12 11:30:45 am

Quote from Chrno:

Quote from kfcman:

I would also cut Zelda OoT, Mario 64, Super Mario World and Super Mario RPG to name a few as they seem to have been at every AGDQ and SGDQ for at least the last two years. Also do we really need 3 Tony Hawk game at AGDQ?

Zelda and Mario games are a must as they bring in loads of money for the charity. And there is always a TH block at AGDQ, they play to a popular audience, these ones have not been played before. OoT last year gave us 12,000 viewers by the way, and this year I would expect more.

Why not some new Zelda and Mario games that have not been ran before instead of the same old ones?

mike89

2012-07-12 11:34:10 am

SEGA Junkie

Like Wind Waker? Like Mario Sunshine?

There's still been a large amount of shuffling of games and game modes, but you can't deny that certain runs just have a constantly large audience.

Paraxade

Edit history:

Paraxade: 2012-07-12 11:34:25 am

2012-07-12 11:34:16 am

Yeah, why don't we get some new games? Like say, Wind Waker and Super Mario Sunshine. It'd be awesome if those were in the games list.

dammit mike Tongue

deathfire123

2012-07-12 01:30:04 pm

Gimme some sugar Shaggy!

sniped by 6 seconds

Pheenoh

2012-07-12 06:07:11 pm

Pheenoh the mean-o

Quote from kfcman:

Quote from Chrno:

Quote from kfcman:

I would also cut Zelda OoT, Mario 64, Super Mario World and Super Mario RPG to name a few as they seem to have been at every AGDQ and SGDQ for at least the last two years. Also do we really need 3 Tony Hawk game at AGDQ?

Zelda and Mario games are a must as they bring in loads of money for the charity. And there is always a TH block at AGDQ, they play to a popular audience, these ones have not been played before. OoT last year gave us 12,000 viewers by the way, and this year I would expect more.

Why not some new Zelda and Mario games that have not been ran before instead of the same old ones?

This whining of cutting games that have been in past marathons even though they bring in the most donations was already mentioned in the first games thread. Please stop.

deathfire123

2012-07-13 02:13:20 am

Gimme some sugar Shaggy!

he's new made evident by him not signing in to post

AdamAK

2012-07-13 12:12:57 pm

Totally rad

Quote from UraniumAnchor:

50 minutes is close enough that I wouldn't touch the estimate on Amnesia.

I second this. With the horrible trick in the Sewers, I'd be pretty reluctant to reduce the estimate, just to be on the safe side. 45 minutes for the run would be a really bad time, but you never know what can go wrong.

mikwuyma

2012-07-13 08:39:09 pm

My feelings on The Demon Rush

Sinister1: Fixed.

Amnesia estimate: Why would I change the estimate for Amnesia? Something always goes wrong in PC games. always.

kfcman: What everyone else said.

deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeballin

UraniumAnchor

Edit history:

UraniumAnchor: 2012-07-14 12:33:04 am

2012-07-14 12:19:47 am

Reporting for duty. I heard there was an argument about games in a marathon. :trollface:

viewers during ADGQ12 OoT run: <12,000
donations betwen OoT start and MM start: 421 (~3.5% click through rate assuming exactly 12k unique viewers and no repeat donors. both not true)
Number of people who didn't care how many other Zelda games we were running and only donated once during the whole marathon: 216 (~51% of the 3%)
Number of people who donated twice during OoT where $x + $y probably right after the Master Sword was mentioned = $30: no clue, but happened often enough that I noticed so skew up the number of people who don't care about other zeldas please

Donations per Unique Donor for
CGDQ: 1.64
AGDQ11: 1.92
JRDQ: 1.68
SGDQ11: 2.05
AGDQ12: 1.83
SGDQ12: 1.97

Factor in people like me who donate a dozen or so times and you find out that most people who watch the marathons will donate once and feel good about themselves for helping a charity or not donate at all. For this reason alone, I feel like playing 5+ games catering to the same crowd over and over again is a waste. Wink

Especially when we start adding games like MMX6 and CV2 to the schedule when even fans of the series don't really like them and it shows in the donations. A better use of that time, in my opinion, would be to go after a market we haven't tried tapping yet. Something like the SMS or Atari crowd! It also helps that they're all such short games and you can do 2 or more of them in the amount of time it takes to do one bad megaman game! Fun fact: The SMS had a longer lifespan in Europe than the NES did here. South America? We had Dreamcast while they were still making SMS games. We did get donations from what, 49 states and 17 countries was it? America, Fuck Yeah! doesn't really work when we've got a worldwide audience. Add in websites like AtariAge / the entire retro scene when the NES wasn't even retro yet and smspower.org which have both been around years longer than NintendoAge and you've got thousands of people that don't care about our marathons that might if you appealed to their interests. <3

More fun facts:
Remove the single largest donation from AGDQ12 and the average donation amount for the entire marathon drops by 58 cents. Drop the top 25 donations (totals $23,763) and the bottom 25 (totals $0.56) or 0.8% of data set and it drops by almost $4. Cheesy

hi5 rest of the 1% club. If somebody wants to Occupy Donations and see what the 99% accomplished compared to the 1% that would be interesting.
MMX6 received a whopping 18 donations in the course of an hour. This one is great btw. It's one of two donations that mention the game at all.

For what it's worth, you'll probably get more hype out of Skyrim than Oblivion. There was hype for Skyrim last year and we weren't even playing it. Once Dawnguard finally comes out for the rest of the non-Xbox playing smart people, it'll carry itself. It's mainly not there for the gameplay even though the run is fun to watch if you've played the game extensively. Comparing Skyrim to Halo is apples and oranges my man.

Same thing with that ET run I suggested. It wasn't there for stellar gameplay, but I can't imagine any game that you could hype up more for a segment called Awful Games Done Quick than "The Worst Game Of All Time." It's a moot point unless somebody else wants to do it though. I won't be there for Awful Games and since it's the only game I suggested running I can't be bitter about it can I? Tongue

Other things I've complained about in marathons:
(redacted)
Misspeaking about the charity we're representing and offending the people we're supposed to be helping.

We can't possibly think these are good things can we? Am I missing something? If you want solutions to these problems while bringing it to your attention, I can do that. Problem 1: (redacted) Problem 2: The little sheet of paper gets lost in 5 seconds. Get one of those big easel pages, write a script on it, tape it to the wall, slap anyone who reads donation comments without at least reading the script first. Problems solved. Yay!

c u! I'm sure I'll just be shunned and told I'm bitter, but the data is all there if anyone cares to actually look at it. Only trying to help even though frustration leads me to shit post.

Sincerely,
dballin

PS: I never said not to play ANY Zelda/Mario games at a marathon ya overreactors. And glass house PJ, I will forgive you for Ghouls n Ghosts because Lagoon and Battletoads were hella fun.

Reporting for duty. I heard there was an argument about games in a marathon. :trollface:

viewers during ADGQ12 OoT run: <12,000
donations betwen OoT start and MM start: 421 (~3.5% click through rate assuming exactly 12k unique viewers and no repeat donors. both not true)
Number of people who didn't care how many other Zelda games we were running and only donated once during the whole marathon: 216 (~51% of the 3%)
Number of people who donated twice during OoT where $x + $y probably right after the Master Sword was mentioned = $30: no clue, but happened often enough that I noticed so skew up the number of people who don't care about other zeldas please

Donations per Unique Donor for
CGDQ: 1.64
AGDQ11: 1.92
JRDQ: 1.68
SGDQ11: 2.05
AGDQ12: 1.83
SGDQ12: 1.97

Factor in people like me who donate a dozen or so times and you find out that most people who watch the marathons will donate once and feel good about themselves for helping a charity or not donate at all. For this reason alone, I feel like playing 5+ games catering to the same crowd over and over again is a waste. ;) Especially when we start adding games like MMX6 and CV2 to the schedule when even fans of the series don't really like them and it shows in the donations. A better use of that time, in my opinion, would be to go after a market we haven't tried tapping yet. Something like the SMS or Atari crowd! It also helps that they're all such short games and you can do 2 or more of them in the amount of time it takes to do one bad megaman game! Fun fact: The SMS had a longer lifespan in Europe than the NES did here. South America? We had Dreamcast while they were still making SMS games. We did get donations from what, 49 states and 17 countries was it? America, Fuck Yeah! doesn't really work when we've got a worldwide audience. Add in websites like AtariAge / the entire retro scene when the NES wasn't even retro yet and smspower.org which have both been around years longer than NintendoAge and you've got thousands of people that don't care about our marathons that might if you appealed to their interests. <3

More fun facts:
Remove the single largest donation from AGDQ12 and the average donation amount for the entire marathon drops by 58 cents. Drop the top 25 donations (totals $23,763) and the bottom 25 (totals $0.56) or 0.8% of data set and it drops by almost $4. :D hi5 rest of the 1% club. If somebody wants to Occupy Donations and see what the 99% accomplished compared to the 1% that would be interesting.
MMX6 received a whopping 18 donations in the course of an hour. [url=http://donations.uranium-anchor.com/tracker/donation/agdq2/-899187353/]This one is great btw.[/url] It's one of two donations that mention the game at all.

For what it's worth, you'll probably get more hype out of Skyrim than Oblivion. There was hype for Skyrim last year and we weren't even playing it. Once Dawnguard finally comes out for the rest of the non-Xbox playing smart people, it'll carry itself. It's mainly not there for the gameplay even though the run is fun to watch if you've played the game extensively. Comparing Skyrim to Halo is apples and oranges my man.

Same thing with that ET run I suggested. It wasn't there for stellar gameplay, but I can't imagine any game that you could hype up more for a segment called Awful Games Done Quick than "The Worst Game Of All Time." It's a moot point unless somebody else wants to do it though. I won't be there for Awful Games and since it's the only game I suggested running I can't be bitter about it can I? :P

Other things I've complained about in marathons:
(redacted)
Misspeaking about the charity we're representing and offending the people we're supposed to be helping.

We can't possibly think these are good things can we? Am I missing something? If you want solutions to these problems while bringing it to your attention, I can do that. Problem 1: (redacted) Problem 2: The little sheet of paper gets lost in 5 seconds. Get one of those big easel pages, write a script on it, tape it to the wall, slap anyone who reads donation comments without at least reading the script first. Problems solved. Yay!

c u! I'm sure I'll just be shunned and told I'm bitter, but the data is all there if anyone cares to actually look at it. Only trying to help even though frustration leads me to shit post.

Sincerely,
dballin

PS: I never said not to play ANY Zelda/Mario games at a marathon ya overreactors. And glass house PJ, I will forgive you for Ghouls n Ghosts because Lagoon and Battletoads were hella fun.

UraniumAnchor

Edit history:

UraniumAnchor: 2012-07-14 12:40:46 am

2012-07-14 12:32:50 am

Not a walrus

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with those numbers but if you think it's making your argument stronger you're delusional.

And I've repeatedly said to stop bringing that issue up so I took the liberty of editing it out of your post.

Alko

2012-07-14 12:39:57 am

Caution: This user contains Kana ^_^

I'm not sure either what you want to say. Part of it reads like 'OmG, we need those games added', the other half reads like 'For whatever's sake, cancel them!' Maybe it's just my bad understanding …

PJ

Edit history:

PJ: 2012-07-14 01:21:24 am

2012-07-14 01:19:57 am

Is PJ

Uh. I know this probably isn't necessary, but I thought I'd post a quick something in response to dballin. Since you know these outside "retro before NES" communities so well, what do you think they want to see? If you think it's more Atari games, you're wrong. Twin Galaxies tried a marathon last year that was mostly Atari games, and advertised heavily on AtariAge and such (and a lot of those people are very active on those forums). Their average viewer count was <10, and they barely raised any money at all. If you think people are going to flip their shit and donate mad money to watch a 10 minute run of the worst Atari 2600 game out there (not even a game they'd have fondness for, like Pitfall), you are seriously out of your mind.

Oh, and to give it more perspective, I'm relatively involved with the arcade scene. No, not the new fighting game/shmup arcade scene, the oldschool Q*Bert marathon, Donkey Kong, etc etc arcade scene. Some of those guys actually have been posting on Facebook about how much they enjoy watching speed runners lately. You know who they like watching? Siglemic and Cosmo. That's right, N64 era and beyond. Not Atari. Not arcade.

Decent try, though.

P.S. Thanks for excusing Ghouls 'n Ghosts and for the Lagoon/Btoads props.

Uh.  I know this probably isn't necessary, but I thought I'd post a quick something in response to dballin.  Since you know these outside "retro before NES" communities so well, what do you think they want to see?  If you think it's more Atari games, you're wrong.  Twin Galaxies tried a marathon last year that was mostly Atari games, and advertised heavily on AtariAge and such (and a lot of those people are very active on those forums).  Their average viewer count was <10, and they barely raised any money at all.  If you think people are going to flip their shit and donate mad money to watch a 10 minute run of the worst Atari 2600 game out there (not even a game they'd have fondness for, like Pitfall), you are seriously out of your mind.

Oh, and to give it more perspective, I'm relatively involved with the arcade scene.  No, not the new fighting game/shmup arcade scene, the oldschool Q*Bert marathon, Donkey Kong, etc etc arcade scene.  Some of those guys actually have been posting on Facebook about how much they enjoy watching speed runners lately.  You know who they like watching?  Siglemic and Cosmo.  That's right, N64 era and beyond.  Not Atari.  Not arcade.

Decent try, though.

P.S.  Thanks for excusing Ghouls 'n Ghosts and for the Lagoon/Btoads props.

Poxnor

2012-07-14 02:48:46 am

Moo! Flap! Hug!

Part of me thinks that I shouldn't get involved in this, but the other part of me hopes that I can offer something valuable to settle things down. dballin, I want you to know that I'm not responding in order to shun you or tell you that you're bitter; this is an honest effort to hear what you're saying and offer my thoughts, simply because I don't want you to feel dismissed without cause.

I think we can all start off by acknowledging that no one suggests a game for a marathon thinking, "This will be a terrible marathon game!" I think everyone suggests a game thinking something like, "This is a fun game, and I think it would be enjoyed"; or, "This game is really popular and would bring in lots of viewers"; or, "This game isn't as well-known, but it's really short and pretty enjoyable"; or, "This game would have lots of great donation incentives"; or, "This game has a crazy reputation as a bad game and people would be curious to watch it"; or any other number of positive-thinking things.

The problem faced by the marathon organizers is then to take all these suggestions and create something that would be an enjoyable viewing and donation-inducing experience. Sometimes, there are hard facts to go on (games that in the past have been highly successful or not as successful -- for whatever reason, be it the game itself, the time slot, the type of run, etc.). Other times, there are just the subjective predictions of the organizers (I think this game would/n't be successful, because...).

Now, recalling my original supposition that everyone who suggests a game does so thinking that it would be a good game for a marathon: yeah, it sucks to have a game you suggest rejected, especially on a subjective prediction that you -- naturally -- disagree with (otherwise you never would have suggested the game in the first place). We hear you on that point, and I think there are plenty of people who can empathize, especially because predictions aren't always correct (there have been games that have done better than expected or not as well as expected in the past).

But, in the same breath, I think everyone had a fair chance to make a case for the games they suggested in the previous thread (i.e., everyone had the opportunity to say why they were suggesting their games, why they thought they would be successful, etc.). The reason you're getting a negative reply is that you're the only person still trying to make a case for games that were cut in that previous thread (not to mention, rambling fairly incoherently about things not even related to game selection). If something got cut in the previous thread, it's cut (based on whatever reason, be it hard facts about past performance, or subjective predictions). I think this thread is meant to be about the remaining games and the changes/cuts/compromises discussed in the first post of this thread.

Part of me thinks that I shouldn't get involved in this, but the other part of me hopes that I can offer something valuable to settle things down.  dballin, I want you to know that I'm not responding in order to shun you or tell you that you're bitter; this is an honest effort to hear what you're saying and offer my thoughts, simply because I don't want you to feel dismissed without cause.

I think we can all start off by acknowledging that no one suggests a game for a marathon thinking, "This will be a terrible marathon game!"  I think everyone suggests a game thinking something like, "This is a fun game, and I think it would be enjoyed"; or, "This game is really popular and would bring in lots of viewers"; or, "This game isn't as well-known, but it's really short and pretty enjoyable"; or, "This game would have lots of great donation incentives"; or, "This game has a crazy reputation as a bad game and people would be curious to watch it"; or any other number of positive-thinking things.

The problem faced by the marathon organizers is then to take all these suggestions and create something that would be an enjoyable viewing and donation-inducing experience.  Sometimes, there are hard facts to go on (games that in the past have been highly successful or not as successful -- for whatever reason, be it the game itself, the time slot, the type of run, etc.).  Other times, there are just the subjective predictions of the organizers (I think this game would/n't be successful, because...).

Now, recalling my original supposition that everyone who suggests a game does so thinking that it would be a good game for a marathon: yeah, it sucks to have a game you suggest rejected, especially on a subjective prediction that you -- naturally -- disagree with (otherwise you never would have suggested the game in the first place).  We hear you on that point, and I think there are plenty of people who can empathize, especially because predictions aren't always correct (there have been games that have done better than expected or not as well as expected in the past).

But, in the same breath, I think everyone had a fair chance to make a case for the games they suggested in the previous thread (i.e., everyone had the opportunity to say why they were suggesting their games, why they thought they would be successful, etc.).  The reason you're getting a negative reply is that you're the only person still trying to make a case for games that were cut in that previous thread (not to mention, rambling fairly incoherently about things not even related to game selection).  If something got cut in the previous thread, it's cut (based on whatever reason, be it hard facts about past performance, or subjective predictions).  I think this thread is meant to be about the remaining games and the changes/cuts/compromises discussed in the first post of this thread.

Alko

2012-07-14 03:04:35 am

Caution: This user contains Kana ^_^

+1 to Poxnor.

Lag.Com

2012-07-14 05:12:21 am

sda loyalist

How do you think I feel? I suggested three games, and the shortest one (which would also have the most optimised run) got cut. It also happens to be the finest game ever created. It just isn't that important for a marathon. Only viewer numbers and donation totals matter.

Freezard

2012-07-14 05:59:57 am

Good list! Four hours of StarCraft 2 is going to be the highlight for me (and it will probably make a lot of money). Also approve 100% OoT 8)

ButtersBB

2012-07-14 06:46:29 am

Quote from Freezard:

Good list! Four hours of StarCraft 2 is going to be the highlight for me (and it will probably make a lot of money). Also approve 100% OoT 8)

I feel like that is going to be the major test. What is more important: The popularity of a game, or how entertaining a run is?

bawlin

2012-07-14 07:04:42 am

there was no point lol. The last thread was locked and I subscribe to the liger school of forum posting. it's a rambling incoherent mess as they say. The numbers are just numbers though I do think we could reach new people if we added a different variety of games. They might not flip shit because of one 10 minute game, but you might get them in the door (and yes i was thinking fo something like a pitfall II actually. fantastic game). I'd feel weird going to any random gaming site and telling them to check out the marathon if we didnt provide any content directly aimed at them.

i just wanted uyama to kill me but instead i got poxnor who im forced to read his post with his angelic voice that would sooth the savage beast.

moooh

2012-07-14 07:08:30 am

Exoray

Alright since there seem to be a lot of confusion and self formed opinions regarding the game selection process, let me illuminate you all.

There's a lot of factors governing a games being or not on the schedule. Depending on who you ask, they have vastly difference importance to each person. Obviously, no single game can fulfill all of these factors to a maximum, so a balance has to be striked. Yes viewer numbers and donations matter, but if they were the only factors that mattered, a lot of games we've played in the past would never have made the schedule in the first place. In the end, the ultimate goal is for us to have fun and to provide a show that is as entertaining as possible.

Viewer popularity: Is this a game that sold well, have many viewers played this game and liked it? Is this the kind of game that people had fond memories of and would enjoy to see being played? Is this a game that was considered very difficult but could now be destroyed by a skilled runner thus putting up with an impressive show? Will we retain previous viewers and gain more new while this game is playing?

Attendee (people with insight) popularity: If you ask some people, the marathon is primarily all for the viewers. If you ask other people, the marathon is just as much for ourselves as it is for the general viewer. Is the game very popular among the speed running community? Does it look impressive when ran even if there are fewer people who actually played the game themselves?

Donation potential: During the marathon we are taking donations. Thus donation potential is a factor that is considered when picking games. Could the game have some totally awesome prizes available? Does the game offer lots of donation incentives and/or challenges that will be popular choices?

Commentary potential: Some games carry themselves pretty well and doesn't need much commentary in order to be entertaining. Some games are in dire need of good commentary in order to be entertaining. Some people are known to do some very awesome commentary during their runs whilst others are either pretty quiet or are in dire need of help because they need to focus on the game.

Variation: To get a good show that has the potential to cater to a large amount of people, variation is neccessary. Do we have too many 3D shooters? Do we have two games of the same series that are very similar? Do we have a good mix of games from various consoles and eras? Did we run game x before and how well was it received then?
One thing to note for repeat games, they have been very popular and requested games and most of the times they've undergone some variation in the type of run being played.

Now, as was said before, no game can satisfy all factors to a maximum. Some games completely ignore one or more factors due to being very strong in the other departments. One thing to also consider is that no game is weighted on its own. There is a schedule that is too large and cuts has to be made. Thus, every game is weighted with regards to every factor and then weighted against every other game on the schedule. As you can see things are turning pretty complex and decisions regarding cuts can be difficult to express in a few words (which is why some may consider the given reasons seems vague or not enough).

I understand that it is difficult for people to discuss games that were cut without having massive subjective opinions on the matter. This is also why it is difficult responding to those opinions since they more often than not doesn't take the marathon as a whole into account.
Mike felt the schedule had too many 3D zeldas represented. The factor of variation plays a big role here. He had to cut 1 and so he did. Regardless of which one he would have picked, there would have been people complaining over the loss of that particular game. I'm sure they would all have provided some very good reasons for the game not to be cut as well. This puts him in a position where there are no easy decisions, but they have to be taken regardless and 1 has to go.

If a game was ruled out due to the factor of variation, well you are in luck! Chances that this game will make the next marathon just sky-rocketed!
Let's say we only did God of War II in this marathon. Well next marathon, if someone offered God of War 1 again it would be far more likely to make it in compared to a repeat of GoWII.

To make some comments on statistics. It's very easy to go blind while staring at numbers. To be honest I'm not sure we can realistically draw many conclusions from the provided statistics, other than the fact that MMX6 didn't do so well. We know this and the game is not on the schedule this year.

Because we have the donation incentives/challenges, there is no way we can simply count average donation amounts and size during certain games straight out of the numbers. People have been donating towards certain choices/challenges up to days in advance. There is no way to know which donations should really belong to which game without going through and reading all donation comments and matching them to the game they really belong to (thus subtracting them from the game that was playing when they donated if it wasn't the same game).
What we can look at, is how much a game totaled in terms of donations towards their respective challenges/choices. We may or may not be able to draw realistic conclusions regarding how viewer count varies versus donation amounts over time due to the factors of prizes and said donation incentives.

Every marathon is a precursor to the next! We can't measure exactly how happy someone was, how entertained the viewers were. All we can assume is that people who liked watching our marathon are more likely to tell their friends and to tune in the next year as well. If they do, they will be expecting the marathon to play out somewhat similar to the last time. This does not mean that we should repeat every game ever played. This does also not mean that we should change all of the games to new games between each marathon. A balance has to be striked here as well and a good mix is needed.
Actually, a rough count of the amount of games currently in the schedule, the amount of completely new appearances are around as much as 50% if not more.

Remember, if you try to pick on poor choice of words, or start arguing semantics over anything said in this post, you really don't have anything substantial to argue about and should think twice about posting.

Alright since there seem to be a lot of confusion and self formed opinions regarding the game selection process, let me illuminate you all.

There's a lot of factors governing a games being or not on the schedule. Depending on who you ask, they have vastly difference importance to each person. Obviously, no single game can fulfill all of these factors to a maximum, so a balance has to be striked. Yes viewer numbers and donations matter, but if they were the only factors that mattered, a lot of games we've played in the past would never have made the schedule in the first place. In the end, the ultimate goal is for us to have fun and to provide a show that is as entertaining as possible.

[b]Viewer popularity:[/b] Is this a game that sold well, have many viewers played this game and liked it? Is this the kind of game that people had fond memories of and would enjoy to see being played? Is this a game that was considered very difficult but could now be destroyed by a skilled runner thus putting up with an impressive show? Will we retain previous viewers and gain more new while this game is playing?

[b]Attendee (people with insight) popularity:[/b] If you ask some people, the marathon is primarily all for the viewers. If you ask other people, the marathon is just as much for ourselves as it is for the general viewer. Is the game very popular among the speed running community? Does it look impressive when ran even if there are fewer people who actually played the game themselves?

[b]Donation potential:[/b] During the marathon we are taking donations. Thus donation potential is a factor that is considered when picking games. Could the game have some totally awesome prizes available? Does the game offer lots of donation incentives and/or challenges that will be popular choices?

[b]Commentary potential:[/b] Some games carry themselves pretty well and doesn't need much commentary in order to be entertaining. Some games are in dire need of good commentary in order to be entertaining. Some people are known to do some very awesome commentary during their runs whilst others are either pretty quiet or are in dire need of help because they need to focus on the game.

[b]Variation:[/b] To get a good show that has the potential to cater to a large amount of people, variation is neccessary. Do we have too many 3D shooters? Do we have two games of the same series that are very similar? Do we have a good mix of games from various consoles and eras? Did we run game x before and how well was it received then?
One thing to note for repeat games, they have been very popular and requested games and most of the times they've undergone some variation in the type of run being played.

Now, as was said before, no game can satisfy all factors to a maximum. Some games completely ignore one or more factors due to being very strong in the other departments. One thing to also consider is that no game is weighted on its own. There is a schedule that is too large and cuts has to be made. Thus, every game is weighted with regards to every factor and then weighted against every other game on the schedule. As you can see things are turning pretty complex and decisions regarding cuts can be difficult to express in a few words (which is why some may consider the given reasons seems vague or not enough).

I understand that it is difficult for people to discuss games that were cut without having massive subjective opinions on the matter. This is also why it is difficult responding to those opinions since they more often than not doesn't take the marathon as a whole into account.
Mike felt the schedule had too many 3D zeldas represented. The factor of variation plays a big role here. He had to cut 1 and so he did. [b]Regardless of which one he would have picked, there would have been people complaining over the loss of that particular game.[/b] I'm sure they would all have provided some very good reasons for the game not to be cut as well. This puts him in a position where there are no easy decisions, but they have to be taken regardless and 1 has to go.

If a game was ruled out due to the factor of variation, well you are in luck! Chances that this game will make the next marathon just sky-rocketed!
Let's say we only did God of War II in this marathon. Well next marathon, if someone offered God of War 1 again it would be far more likely to make it in compared to a repeat of GoWII.

To make some comments on statistics. It's very easy to go blind while staring at numbers. To be honest I'm not sure we can realistically draw many conclusions from the provided statistics, other than the fact that MMX6 didn't do so well. We know this and the game is not on the schedule this year.

Because we have the donation incentives/challenges, there is no way we can simply count average donation amounts and size during certain games straight out of the numbers. People have been donating towards certain choices/challenges up to days in advance. There is no way to know which donations should really belong to which game without going through and reading all donation comments and matching them to the game they really belong to (thus subtracting them from the game that was playing when they donated if it wasn't the same game).
What we can look at, is how much a game totaled in terms of donations towards their respective challenges/choices. We may or may not be able to draw realistic conclusions regarding how viewer count varies versus donation amounts over time due to the factors of prizes and said donation incentives.

[b]Every marathon is a precursor to the next![/b] We can't measure exactly how happy someone was, how entertained the viewers were. All we can assume is that people who liked watching our marathon are more likely to tell their friends and to tune in the next year as well. If they do, they will be expecting the marathon to play out somewhat similar to the last time. This does not mean that we should repeat every game ever played. This does also not mean that we should change all of the games to new games between each marathon. A balance has to be striked here as well and a good mix is needed.
Actually, a rough count of the amount of games currently in the schedule, the amount of completely new appearances are around as much as 50% if not more.

Remember, if you try to pick on poor choice of words, or start arguing semantics over anything said in this post, you really don't have anything substantial to argue about and should think twice about posting.

Paraxade

Edit history:

Paraxade: 2012-07-14 08:02:18 am

Paraxade: 2012-07-14 07:46:35 am

2012-07-14 07:45:49 am

So uh, if this means anything, I watched the Skyrim run that Mike linked on the first page. I will admit a big chunk of it was pretty dull towards the end, especially the damn peace council, but for most of it (mainly towards the beginning) I was fairly entertained. I see why Mike cut it but I still think that the ridiculous popularity of the game is a factor that shouldn't be ignored (Halo isn't a great comparison since Halo is well-known for its online multiplayer, not for its single-player campaign - same goes for all the big online shooters like CoD; also Halo came out a long time ago while Skyrim is a very recent release). Maybe we could make it a bonus game or something so it would be guaranteed to make some money either way and we can see how popular it is with viewers. I was also gonna suggest a donation war between Oblivion and Skyrim but wow Oblivion is way shorter than I thought.

Anyway, if this doesn't convince anyone then I'm gonna stop pushing the issue. I just think completely cutting such a well-known and currently relevant game is a mistake.

edit: Oh and also checking the AGDQ12 chat logs, a lot of viewers were asking about a Skyrim run.

So uh, if this means anything, I watched the Skyrim run that Mike linked on the first page. I will admit a big chunk of it was pretty dull towards the end, especially the damn peace council, but for most of it (mainly towards the beginning) I was fairly entertained. I see why Mike cut it but I still think that the ridiculous popularity of the game is a factor that shouldn't be ignored (Halo isn't a great comparison since Halo is well-known for its online multiplayer, not for its single-player campaign - same goes for all the big online shooters like CoD; also Halo came out a long time ago while Skyrim is a very recent release). Maybe we could make it a bonus game or something so it would be guaranteed to make some money either way and we can see how popular it is with viewers. I was also gonna suggest a donation war between Oblivion and Skyrim but wow Oblivion is way shorter than I thought.

Anyway, if this doesn't convince anyone then I'm gonna stop pushing the issue. I just think completely cutting such a well-known and currently relevant game is a mistake.

edit: Oh and also checking the AGDQ12 chat logs, a lot of viewers were asking about a Skyrim run.

ButtersBB

2012-07-14 09:39:57 am

Quote from Paraxade:

(Halo isn't a great comparison since Halo is well-known for its online multiplayer, not for its single-player campaign - same goes for all the big online shooters like CoD).

I would comment on this, but I really don't want to be THAT guy. The one that says, "You shouldn't cut THIS game when you should really be cutting THAT game."

sinister1

2012-07-14 10:40:56 am

sinister1

so pro u don't even know

nice post moooh.

Also parax makes a good point.

Tiberius

2012-07-14 10:46:23 am

Make it so.

+ about 7 to Moooh for an excellent post.

I can understand all the conflicting opinions and sympathise in many ways with dballin and others but I think the arguments put forward by the mods and moooh in particular are very sound and reasonable, and also there is always the point that in this sort of situation there is no chance of making everyone happy.

With regards to the problems mentioned with speaking about the charity, it would be incredibly simple to record a soundbite of Mike or someone giving the charity spiel that could then be played every half an hour or so, thoughts?